148 sats \ 26 replies \ @Zepasta 6 Dec 2023 \ on: Luke Dashjr said that Ordinals & BRC20 will no longer exist on Bitcoin. bitcoin
deleted by author
Bitcoin never was intended for these shitcoiners idea's
reply
deleted by author
reply
Who gets to decide what is considered spam?
You and your node
Censorship is censorship
And it is your right to censor stuff you don't like on your own node
Censorship is a fundamental human right
My node, my rules. Follow them or I'll kick your transaction out
reply
inscriptions remind me of the dot com bubble. The entire market was fed and subsisted on advertising dollars until the investment money dried up and then the advertising revenue dried up and it uncovered that there was no real value inside most of it.
I could see this happening with bitcoin and inscriptions--a bunch of VC funds got the green light to spend millions on inscriptions--they are spending that on mining fees, but eventually all of it will dry up and we'll see who isn't wearing any clothes.
The only question in my mind is how long these startups can keep pushing the investment/loss forward to the miners without realizing their fate.
reply
What if miners become the majority creators or inscriptions, thus the economic cost isnt really exhausting the inscriptors and miners profit off inscriptions and not fees and there is no space left for other economic activity ? I dont want that to happen and worried about it 😞
reply
This is why there could be a fork. This could turn into Bitcoin (hard money) vs Bitcoin Inscriptions as two competing mining networks.
reply
Although, the current activity isn’t a fork, it’s just selective mining, which miners have always been allowed to do. Only will be a fork situation if Luke and team decide to make their code inoperable with the current rules to create a fork. But if that happens, they would be volunteering to be the shortest chain and lose the title of Bitcoin.
reply
Cue Johnny Keynes.
reply
Dumping nuclear waste in your water supply is also not out-of-consensus with bitcoin so I guess you defend people doing that?
reply
“A man's flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe.”
― Frank Herbert, Dune
reply
This would be a good response if his assertion was that anything not prevented by Bitcoin is morally right, but that's not what he said lol
What I believe he's saying is that it's strange for a group of people who originally claimed to support the unwavering right to store and transact Bitcoin now have a problem with how people are transacting.
reply
The free market will decide. Feel free to argue with internet strangers, or to choose whatever you believe and let the free market consensus determine what attributes it values enough to be part of bitcoin core
reply
deleted by author
reply
To me this whole brc20 and ordinals stuff is a way for shitcoiners to try and weaken btc. For me this is non-utility, bunch of scam stuff we don't need on our chain, idgaf if it gets censored, u cannot sensor these dumb shitcoiners/scammers enough. Just scroll once on r/cryptocurrency, filled with absolutely retarded people that think btc is trash.
reply
I see you have strong opinions about what people should or should not do with their money. Have you considered running for the office of a central banker?
reply
I see you have strong opinions about what people should or should not do with their money
So does bitcoin
For example, you can't send it to someone via an invalid transaction
You can otherwise (even with an inscription attached, currently)
Bitcoin is very opinionated about this
Protocols imply rules and rules imply "you can't do whatever you want"
Oh yeah, also: sometimes bitcoin is so opinionated it adds to its rules to exclude even more transactions
Segwit did this, taproot did this, and bitcoin can do it again if consensus is reached
reply
No, Bitcoin does not care what you do with your money. An invalid transaction is not a transaction at all and is not "doing something with your money".
By freedom I mean, you can donate to Canadian Truckers, Ukraine, Hamas or North Korea. Or you can buy monkey JPEGs.
And on the point of SegWit, it is my (probably unpopular) opinion that it is Bitcoin's single biggest, and largely unspoken of, hipocrisy. After "winning" the block size wars unchanged, Bitcoin then effectively doubled its block size anyway. But bitcoiners still sit on their high horses and pretend to be "purists".
reply
Bitcoin does not care what you do with your money. An invalid transaction is not a transaction at all and is not "doing something with your money".
I don't think I am understanding you properly because this seems self defeating. You could do X with your money until rule -X was added. At that point it no longer counted as "doing something with your money" (this is where I suspect I am misunderstanding you) so it doesn't count as censorship.
If you believed that (which I don't think you do, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to show why I suspect I am misunderstanding you) then I don't see how any rule is censorship. Not even Luke's proposed changes. They just make it so that something you want to do with your money "doesn't count" anymore due to the new rule. To me, that's the same thing as censorship. But it seems like to you it's not? I am probably just misunderstanding you though.
reply
Yea, something got lost in translation there. Anyway, per my understanding, that's not how new rules get introduced into Bitcoin anyway. You cannot just proclaim all those ordinals invalid because you would then fork away from nodes that never upgraded to "Luke's fix" version.
But Luke's narrative is to treat it as an "exploit" in the first place (only because he doesn't like it, and his likes and dislikes are irrelevant), he implies to intend to erase Ordinals from existence, which makes him a tyrant. So I took a punt at a comment trying to defend it.
reply
that's not how new rules get introduced into Bitcoin anyway
But it is
Take segwit as an example
A big reason it was introduced was to block coinbase transactions that used covert asic boost
They used to be perfectly valid, and moreover, such transactions were popular among miners. But segwit put a stop to them
Censorship, pure and simple
We censored before and we can censor again. If the things being censored make bitcoin worse money then I'm in favor of it, because such censorship makes bitcoin better money, which is what I want: better money
You cannot just proclaim all those ordinals invalid because you would then fork away from nodes that never upgraded to "Luke's fix" version.
Sounds like you can do it with consensus
But Luke's narrative is to treat it as an "exploit" in the first place (only because he doesn't like it, and his likes and dislikes are irrelevant)
But they are relevant
Bitcoin's rules are whatever its node operators, collectively, want them to be
He wants rules that make inscriptions more difficult
That's a perfectly valid proposal and I support it too so that makes at least two of us
Consensus emerges with sufficient support, and that's when bitcoin's rules can change
reply
Bitcoin's rules are whatever its node operators, collectively, want them to be
People forget that this is the pointy end of what all this means. When people are crusading for sovereignty of nodes, and consensus, this is that. Whoever you happen to be, it will probably not fall out in the way that you like all the time.
reply
No.
reply
Why so triggered?
reply